Skip to main content

Table 1 Association between experience, practices concerning fecal incontinence, and previous attendance of workshop

From: Influence of workshop attendance on management of pediatric fecal incontinence in Nigeria

Attended a workshop on fecal incontinence

Variables

Attended

No (%)

Not attended

No (%)

Total

No (%)

χ2

p value

Length of practice (years)

 ≤ 15

1 (9.1)

20 (66.7)

21 (51.2)

10.679

0.001*

 > 15

10 (90.9)

10 (33.3)

20 (48.8)

  

Stoma nurse/therapist available

 Yes

2 (18.2)

1 (3.3)

3 (7.3)

2.617

0.106

 No

9 (81.8)

29 (96.7)

38 (92.7)

  

Done MACE on patient(s)

 Yes

4 (36.4)

3 (10.0)

7 (17.1)

3.951

0.047*

 No

7 (63.6)

27 (90.0)

34 (82.9)

  

Patients compliance with rectal enemas

 Very compliant

2 (18.2)

2 (6.9)

4 (10.0)

1.020#

0.600

 Somewhat compliant

7 (63.6)

21 (72.4)

28 (70.0)

  

 Poorly compliant

2 (18.2)

6 (20.7)

8 (20.0)@

  

Cooperativeness of parents in administering rectal enemas

 Very cooperative

1 (9.1)

3 (10.3)

4 (10.0)

0.063#

0.969

 Somewhat cooperative

9 (81.8)

24 (82.7)

33 (82.5)

  

 Uncooperative

1 (9.1)

2 (6.9)

3 (7.5)@

  

Scoring system used to evaluate patients with fecal incontinence

 Yes

5 (45.5)

6 (20.0)

11 (26.8)

2.657

0.103

 No

6 (54.5)

24 (80.0)

30 (73.2)

  

Digital radiograph to monitor treatment of fecal incontinence

 Yes

5 (45.5)

7 (23.3)

12 (29.3)

1.903

0.168

 No

6 (54.5)

23 (76.7)

29 (70.7)

  

Abdominal USS to monitor treatment of fecal incontinence

 Yes

2 (18.2)

8 (26.7)

10 (24.4)

0.314

0.575

 No

9 (81.8)

22 (73.3)

31 (75.6)

  

Stool chart to monitor treatment of fecal incontinence

 Yes

1 (9.1)

8 (26.7)

9 (22.0)

1.451

0.228

 No

10 (90.9)

22 (73.3)

32 (78.0)

  

Total

11 (100.0)

30 (100.0)

41 (100.0)

  
  1. #Likelihood ratio
  2. @One respondent did not answer this question
  3. *Statistically significant
  4. MACE Malone antegrade continent enema